pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Access to the PCP QA Suite

To: Dean Johnson <dtj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Access to the PCP QA Suite
From: Alan Hoyt <ahoyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:13:45 -0500
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.SGI.4.40.0209260809580.13050809-100000@rattle.melbourne.sgi.com> <3D931D05.8020603@moser-inc.com> <1033053155.31445.1313.camel@samer>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
Given a choice - I would have a propensity to NOT reinvent the wheel - we cannot presuppose that the scripts are filled with bloat and cruft - maybe SGI had prudent maintainers. Most likely, any QA scripts supporting the diversity of architectures supported by PCP would eventually be of comparable size and complexity, regardless of being community driven. Your approach would result in the same effect as branching.

- Alan -

Dean Johnson wrote:


I suspect that its a great deal like renovating houses, at some point the renovations become so massive and complex that its just easier to tear it down and start from scratch.

I believe the easiest and best way to approach this is to have bribe Ken
(and Co.) to write a small document that would outline the steps to
creating a PCP test base and what actually constitutes effective PCP QA
(what!?!?! "it compiles" doesn't count? ;-)). Once the community has an
idea of where to start, then its a matter of mapping out areas for
interested people to focus on. Perhaps, if things go well, Ken can throw
some tests over the wall to be added, not to mention he could
incorporate some of the open source tests. I suspect, based on personal
experience, that Ken already has a very clear idea of how it would be
structured and its a matter of getting it down on paper.

Of course I am in no position to volunteer Ken for anything. ;-)

        -Dean







<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>